Skip to main content
2:25 am
make a mistake -- i want to recognize the chairman of the committee, mr. goodlatte. >> thank you. i'm going to join you and the ranking chairwoman by putting my statement in the record. i want to say how important e- verify is as we work through immigration reform. we had a failure in 1986 with immigration that it grant a pathway to citizenship for nearly 3 million people. we thought the people who passed it at the time -- did not have a good enforcement mechanism. the laws that were put on the books were not enforced. we have a much greater problem today. the-verify it is not the entire solution, but it is a critical part about the enforcement
2:26 am
solution making it easier for employers to be able to know whether the person presenting their credentials for a job are indeed the person they say they are and have the authorization they are going to have. we will see a demonstration of it today. let's get on with the opportunity to do that. i will put the rest of my statement in the record. >> i will introduce you. then we will have a demonstration of e-verify. then we will recognize you for your opening statements. i will apologize in advance for pronunciations that are a function of my inability to phonetically do things very well -- ms. soreya corea. is that close? she currently serves as a sissy director for the u.s. cities -- citizenship and immigration services. she is responsible for delivering identity immigration
2:27 am
status and employment authorization information. she also oversees the biometric division and a verification division. she has an undergraduate certification in acquisitions management from the american university in washington d.c. and a bachelors of arts from louis university. ms. chris ambrulis is president of ivory development, the land development in salt lake city utah. he was appointed president of ivory development in 1996. he has overseen a land acquisition and planning of 14,000 homesites and hundreds of thousands of retail and commercial properties, totaling nearly $1 billion in assets. he attended harvard business school, and he holds a bachelor of science degree in political science from the university of utah. mr. randall johnson is senior
2:28 am
vice president of united states chamber of commerce for labor, immigration, and employment issues. before joining the u.s. chamber, he served in the house of representatives. he earned his master of law and labor relations from georgetown. finally, miss emilie tulley this policy attorney for the national immigration law center. her advocacy focuses on expanding the rights of low-wage immigrant workers. she analyzes federal legislative developments affecting immigrants in the workplace. she holds a j.d. from williams and mary. i believe we have a demonstration of e-verified. you're welcome to take it away. >> we will bring this up on the screen here.
2:29 am
i am the deputy chief for the verification division. i will run for you this afternoon to go cases, one case that goes through automatically, and one case that gas -- that gets our response. i am using test data on our test system. this is what the law again looks like. i will click new case. it asks you what the individual attested to on their form. for this demonstration, i will select citizen. then it asks what documents based -- they provided. then it asks which documents were presented. here i am selecting driver's license and social security card. and then go down to the next piece. it is going to ask you what stake the driver's license was issued in.
2:30 am
i am selecting kansas. then it asks you to fill out the name of the individual. the date of birth. it is going to ask for the social security number. the system wants to make sure that documents it shown are still valid, so it asks you for the date in which the document expires. and you have to put in the hire date, which has to be within three days of the current date. then continue. here you will see the response.
2:31 am
this individual's employment is authorized. it has a summary of the information submitted with the case. up here at the top is a case verification number which the employer is asked to record on the form. now will demonstrate a case where an individual is not automatically implement authorized. driver's license, social security, state in which the card was issued. all of this information is what the employer can find on the form. expiration date.
2:32 am
date of hire. select continue. your the system understands that it is about to issue a tentative non confirmation, i yellow light response, in which an individual may have to follow up with the government. it gives the employer one more time to look at the case. as you saw, it went automatically through before. it will give them a chance to avoid any type of mistake. i will click continue. your it says the individual has received a tentative and non- confirmation. the data berg did not match the social security administration records. it clarifies that this does not mean the employee is not authorized to work, however, additional action is required. the employer at -- the employer
2:33 am
would click continue. here they can select a notice to give to the employee to tell them about the tentative and non-confirmation. we have this letter populated in english and spanish. we have it translated in 17 other languages in our resource section. i will show you what the notice looks like. the notice has the information about the employee, the reason for the tentative non- confirmation, it gives information on what they are supposed to do, it reminds the employer had this information can be found in other languages, and it asks the employee to sign. there are special instructions for the employee on the next page, telling them what they must do and what their rights are. the employer must confirm that
2:34 am
the notified the employee of the tentative non-confirmation. it does not have to happen on the spot. the employer has the ability to save the case if the employee is not in their a immediate view, this could happen over a day or so. if the individual decides to contest their non-confirmation, then the employer has to refer this to the government so we know that personal contact us. if they do not contest, they may be terminated. i will click continue. here, i will refer the case. that case will either go to the social security administration or the department of common security. they will wait for the employe to contact them within eight days. that is the conclusion of this demonstration. >> thank you very much for doing that. i will recognize our witnesses for their opening statements. we will begin with miss corea.
2:35 am
i wrote a light means it will be the best to wrap up your thoughts. >> thank you. i appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you our shared goal of the effective employment verification for the e-verify program. we have made significant progress and improvement in the program since we last came before this committee in february 2011. our focus remains on ensuring that the accuracy, efficiency, and integrity of the system, while increasing awareness and understanding of the program for both the employees and employers. i am pleased to report that use of e-verify continues to grow. the system continues to score heart -- high marks in customer satisfaction. the number of employees has grown from 24,000 to over 430,000. the-verify processed 2400 -- e-
2:36 am
verify received a customer satisfaction score of hundred. -- 86/100. they were confident in its accuracy and are likely to continue to use the system. improving the accuracy of the system remains our primary goal. when examining e-verify, it is important to look at two rates, accuracy for authorized workers and accuracy for unauthorized workers. i want to talk about accuracy for authorized workers. a common misperception of e- verify is that underlining government data is wrong or mismatched or a tentative and non-confirmation is returned. this is only an indication of the discrepancy between the information provided and the information in the government data base. for example, if the employee
2:37 am
must notify the social security administration of a name change following marriage or other proceedings, the employer needs to make sure they enter the name exactly as it appears. u.s. government needs to update its records. the accuracy of e-verify requires the action of three parties, the employer, the employee, and u.s. government. independent evaluations of e- verify found that the rates for authorized employees, those who had to resolve a non- confirmation, came to 1.7%. this study found that 94% a
2:38 am
final non confirmations were accurately issued. we are also working to improve the identity verification aspects. detecting identity fraud in employment verification requires a multilevel approach which i laid out in my written testimony. in november 2010, we expanded e verify's photographic mapping tools to include passports and passport cards. in the survey, users waited the photo tool very highly as a math -- as a method for reducing fraud. we are developing other methods for reducing fraud, such as monitoring repeated use of social security numbers and a system enhancement that allows employees to lock their social security numbers in e-verify. our branch monitors e-verified to insure employers use the system properly. we're also working closely with the department of justice to be effectively prevent discrimination and misuse that adversely affects employees.
2:39 am
to guard against avoidable tentative non confirmations, we launched a service that empowers individuals by allowing them to verify the work authorization status online and proactively result records mismatched before formally seeking employment. over 180,000 individuals nationwide have used the service. to inform the public about e- verify, we have robust out reach initiatives that include radio, print, and on-line ads in english and spanish. uscis maintains an employee hotline for e-verify users. in addition, a new multimedia toolkit is available on line in english and spanish to help employees understand the program. u.s. cis is committed to continued expansion of the program while ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the system. we are equally committed to
2:40 am
increasing complaints, knowledge, and understanding of the program and how it benefits the work force. on behalf of all my colleagues, we appreciate congress's continued strong support of the program. i thank you for this opportunity to testify. >> thank you. mr. gambrulis? >> thank you for this opportunity to testify. i am the president of ivory development based in salt lake city. ivory holmes is one of the members of the national association of home builders. to ensure every home -- ivory holmes -- homes employes american citizens, we use the e- verify system.
2:41 am
ivory holmes worked closely with the utah legislature to craft reason approach to bounce compliance with the law with the needs of employers. once the state enacted a law, ivory holmes came into compliance with e-verify. we train our human resources at to act in accordance with the law. on the whole, we found e- verified to be efficient and effective. generally speaking, the system is easy to use. in 2010, we have processed approximately 320 employees through e-verify. we have only had four hires who received a tentative non- confirmation, none of whom who have protested the mismatch. anecdotally, we suspect not employable applicants will refrain from pursuing a job once we know there identification. we believe it is working as intended. it is possible that the potential hires for undocumented
2:42 am
maid -- may be self policing. the system is not without problems. none of them have curzon -- proven to be impossible to overcome. there must be a process to inform and educate businesses about the requirements of and changes to the program beyond what is in the federal register. these are simple improvements that would enhance the system and make it more user-friendly for all businesses large and small. as an employer, it would be preferable to begin the e-verify process when a worker accept a position, rather than be required to wait until after the worker starts. this cannot be understated. if and newly hired employees and eventually receives a final non- confirmation, confirming they are ineligible, we lose time and resources dedicated to training that individual only to have to start the process of hiring all over again. allow us to verify workers'
2:43 am
status of the day of will give us more time to handle a tentative and non-confirmations. we supported the legal work force act introduced by former chairman lamar smith. this legislation was an important first up in creating system that is workable. we hope to see similar elements in any new legislation you consider. the legal work force act provided a strong safe harbor to ensure that those who use the system in good faith will not be held liable by the government or by the employer's workers for errors. the legislation also maintained current law with regard to the verification of an employer's direct employees. under current law, ivory homes responsible for verification of the identity number authorization status of their direct employees only. while we do not verify the employees of subcontractors, we are precluded from knowing --
2:44 am
from using an authorized -- unauthorized workers. the government also must be able to approve the e-verify system by seeking ways to limit or eliminate identity fraud. this is also another reason why it is necessary to have a safe harbor in any legislation. until we can detect cases of fraud, employers should not be held accountable for unauthorized workers who have clear the system because of identity theft. this must work for the smallest employers as well as the largest. the reality is that many small businesses cannot access the internet from a job site. providing a telephone option is important. if employers are going to be required to use the e-verify program, they must be assured that there are only one set of
2:45 am
rules needed for compliance, a strong federal pre-emption clause is critical. my experience has been positive. the system has proven to be easy to use, protect employees' privacy and rights, and we generally find it to be an efficient and effective system. i support comprehensive immigration reform. we supported the legal work force act. we look forward to working with you on this element of immigration reform. thank you. >> mr. johnson? >> i was going to say good evening. i will move it back up to good afternoon. i welcome this opportunity to talk about the chamber of commerce is views on e-verify. in past testimony, our view is that the program -- we took the view that it was not right -- right for prime time. it should not be imposed on employers.
2:46 am
however, times do change. sometimes it becomes necessary to reevaluate ones assumptions and positions. obviously, we at the chamber moved carefully before we consider whether or not to support a new mandate on our members. we created a task force at the chamber comprised of a broad section of our membership and degenerate 2011 to assess whether e-verify should be expanded. that task force comprised a good section of our members, small to large, trade associations and companies. ultimately, after a lot of analysis, we conclude the chamber should support a mandatory e-verify system. i put it in my written testimony, but let me summarize. the government has the money has indicated there have been technical improvements to the system.
2:47 am
note tentative and non- confirmations are acceptable. it is reassuring to know that the corrections process is now a lot easier. look, this is one situation where we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. with regard to cost, i know there is some information in the record with regard to various numbers. all i can say is that our economists have looked at the studies. i believe those studies have overestimated the impact on certain chamber members. where the rubber meets the road, mr. chairman, is that our members report that they have adapted to the system well. i hear very little in terms of adverse impact and costs on their operations. third, most importantly, we need a strong pre-emption clause.
2:48 am
there are various kinds of balances that need to be struck. we are well aware of pre- emption. we need one law across the country. fourth, and i want to emphasize this -- we cannot support a law that requires reid verification of an entire work force. i do not want to state the obvious, but you have 100,000 employees at a company, it is extremely burdensome to all the sudden run everybody through a new three verification process, particularly when you have already done that. it is quite clear that given the turn in our work force, most workers will be run through e- verify in any case. we're past the days when an employee state with one company forever. with regard to save harbors, i want to make clear that if an employer is tour -- is to
2:49 am
comply, he should have a safe harbor from litigation. on a more technical basis, but very important to our members, trying to change the statute does that the process, which is now a written document, can be changed so that the employer can populate the information directly into e-verify, skipping this paperwork step. seventh, we talked about this -- any new mandate needs to be rolled out slowly. we are bringing a lot more people into the system. it should be rolled out slowly. hopefully, it can be tasted -- tested as it is for about so we can get the case of the system before it applies to new hires.
2:50 am
leslie, it is quite clear, we know about problems of agriculture. it is the 800 pound elephant in the room that we used to not talk about, but now we do. they have a lot of on authorized workers in our work force. our country depends on that industry. we need to recognize that a new system imposed on that industry would be a disaster. i do not have a solution. we need to try and find one with regard to the application of e- verify to agriculture. leslie, i want to note that we do support, unlike the president's bill, the application of e-verify to the entire workforce. his bill exempted something like 60% of employers. i wanted to note that we have strongly supported e-verify as part of a comprehensive immigration reform. we will continue to do so. our corker planks have been more pieces, agriculture, are reliable and limit a verification system, or
2:51 am
security, and a means to get illegals out of the shadows. >> thank you. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share the national immigration centers perspective on e-verify. the national immigration law center has advocate for changes to e-verify since the program's inception and continues to have grave concerns about the program. it makes all workers, citizens and immigrants alike, more vulnerable. across the country, labor law violations are rampant and workers are regularly denied their basic rights overtime and minimum wage. when they try to assert these rights, they face retaliation. the-verify makes this problem worse because it encourages bad behavior by employers.
2:52 am
he-verify encourages employers to misidentified workers as independent contractors. it gives employers one more tool to retaliate against workers so that if worker complaints, and import and use that against the worker. all american workplaces supper. the-verify employers routinely violate the program rules. that hurts workers. the only way worker knows that he has an e-verify error is if an employer tells them. the-verify is a program that is based on an agreement between the employer and the government. workers are stuck on the sidelines, even though they have the most to lose. for instance, 42% of workers say they are not notified by their employer of an e-verify error. if worker does not know an error exists, they have no way to correct it. it is important that workers
2:53 am
know about errors in their records because it can lead to workers getting fired. the livelihood of citizens is at risk. using the government's own statistics, at least 50,000 workers experienced an error last year. that is with 93% of employers not using the program. i will be to go examples. a u.s. citizen in tennessee received an error notice from her employer. she went to the assets a office to fix it. she thought she fixed it. the-verify generates another error. she gets fired. another example -- a u.s. citizen experienced on error because an employer may mistake when they were typing the employee's social security number into the system. again, that worker went to a social security office, could not resolve the error, e-verify generated a final non
2:54 am
confirmation, and a worker got fired. the most disturbing piece is that the workers who lose their jobs because of an error, there is no formal process in place for them to get their job back. that is a problem for thousands of workers who experienced these errors. as you can imagine, these problems will only grow exponentially if mandate the program. we have recommendations about how to move forward. first, congress needs to pass immigration reform legislation that has a right to citizenship for the millions of unauthorized workers in our communities. protecting workers is the best way to put unscrupulous employers on a business and raise standards. we need to make sure that this system is not misused. employers should not be able to use it to avoid their obligations. if they participate, they should have to follow the program rules. violations should have to come with penalties. there are currently no
2:55 am
meaningful penalties for employers who do not follow the rules we should make sure that the thousands of citizens and legalized citizens have a way to correct errors and keep their jobs. government errors should not stand between citizens and their job. last, for mandatory e-verify, you need to phase it in. after each phase in, we need to evaluate what is happening in the face in. thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank all of our witnesses. i will recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. goodlatte. >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. ms. corea, i appreciated
2:56 am
demonstration of how the program works. i wanted to ask you to step back in time a couple of years. your predecessor testified in the subcommittee on the same issue two years ago. written testimony indicated that they were exploring ways to lock identities for social security numbers. your testimony says the same thing, that you're developing the capability. i'm wondering what progress you have made on a lot ability since 2011? when could we expect to see that capability implemented? >> thank you for your question. we have been working on the features, we're working with the social security administration and the department of common security, the office of civil rights and civil liberties, as well as privacy offers others --
2:57 am
privacy officers to make sure we develop a locking capability in the system that protects the rights of employees, and chirrs the social security number is proper -- properly locked, and that works. we expect in had to be completed later this year. we would be able to come back and brief you a little bit more on exactly how that would work. we're still exploring how to do that. >> thank you. sir, you mentioned in your testimony you're skeptical of utah's e-verify requirement when it was first enacted. what concerns did you have prior to using e-verify? after you began using it, did those concerns become reality, or have your concerns been allayed? >> thank you for the question. we were concerned about the accuracy and timeliness. we had not been using it previously.
2:58 am
once we were able to train our human resources people, we found it to be, as you saw in the demonstration, a fairly easy to use. it did take some time initially to train our human resources people. we were concerned, candidly, more about the impact on utah businesses. we were concerned -- one of the reasons we were skeptical was that utah would be one of only a few states that would have enacted amendatory verification system. we were concerned at what that would do to employers and employees and to the business culture and climate in utah. those that use the system that we are aware of have had similar experiences as we have, that it is efficient and effective. >> do you and your human resources staff prefer using e-
2:59 am
verify or the form? >> we prefer e-verify. the reason is that it gives -- the idea of safe harbor -- that is not just for the company but for the individual. if you are the human-resources person for a company and your checking off the boxes, the information you have been given, and you verify those documents are real. process, you're putting the papers in a file, and you might be audited or you might not. in the case of e-verify, we can print out the confirmation letter. we can put it in the file. if we are ever audited or ever investigated, we can demonstrate that we have gone to the process of verified -- verification.
3:00 am
our human resources people have told me unequivocally that they prefer this system. >> let me get mr. johnson a chance to tell us about what his numbers are saying, about whether or not the system is easy to use are too burdensome. >> no, i find it quite easy to use. any kind of new technology, there is a bit of a cost at the beginning. once you get used to it, it works very well. one comment i have gotten is sometimes a concern that it does not catch everyone who is undocumented. sometimes when the government shows up for raid, that results -- even though the employer has not knowingly hire anybody -- it results in destabilization. >> if they have acted in good
3:01 am
faith, we need to find a way to remedy that.
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am

House Hearing
CSPAN March 3, 2013 2:25am-4:00am EST

Immigrants & E-Verify News/Business. (2013) House hearing on the government program that allows employers to determine the immigration status of new hires. New.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Mr. Goodlatte 2, Leslie 2, Emilie Tulley 1, Ms. Soreya Corea 1, Ms. Chris Ambrulis 1, Mr. Randall Johnson 1, Gambrulis 1, Corea 1, Georgetown 1, Cis 1, Holmes 1, The System 1, Ms. Corea 1, Johnson 1, Washington D.c. 1, Salt Lake City Utah 1, Tennessee 1, Ivory Holmes 1, Kansas 1, Salt Lake City 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:35:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 3/3/2013